I know that I'll take a lot of flack for this thread from people who feel all is as it should be with hurricane forecasting, but I have a problem with it. 48 hours before Irma made landfall, NOAA was predicting disaster for the East Coast of Florida. The media ran with the ball, and many thousands of East Coast Floridians evacuated to points north. Then, two days before landfall, NOAA changed its prediction, and said that Irma would track the WEST Coast, and residents there were left with limited options. In each case, the media played it up with lurid headlines predicting massive death and destruction on BOTH coasts. The fact is, NOAA's "cone" for East Coast tracking did not encompass the actual West Coast track of Irma. IMHO, if NOAA cannot reliably predict the track of tropical cyclones even 48 hours in advance, it should widen the "cones" of its track predictions. As presently structured, they are imparting a false sense of security to some, and a false sense of certain danger to others. Why not just be honest and say "We have theories, but we really don't know WHERE it's going, even 48 hours in advance?" That's the obvious truth, why not tell it? And please don't tell me "They do," with their fine print disclaimers. People take the graphics they serve up as gospel.

you need to read the fine print on the nhc page. huge paragraph
it is all right there.

You need to read the last two sentences of my post. No one reads the fine print. We're talking about the predicting of weather that has implications for millions of people. No one is looking at the cones and saying to themselves "Oh, well, they did say in the fine print that it might be wrong." The whole point of having a cone is the implicit contention that the event will lie within the margin of its borders. If that is not a reasonable expectation, as with Irma, then the cone by definition needs to be wider, or shorter, or both.

I know that I'll take a lot of flack for this thread from people who feel all is as it should be with hurricane forecasting, but I have a problem with it. 48 hours before Irma made landfall, NOAA was predicting disaster for the East Coast of Florida. The media ran with the ball, and many thousands of East Coast Floridians evacuated to points north. Then, two days before landfall, NOAA changed its prediction, and said that Irma would track the WEST Coast, and residents there were left with limited options. In each case, the media played it up with lurid headlines predicting massive death and destruction on BOTH coasts. The fact is, NOAA's "cone" for East Coast tracking did not encompass the actual West Coast track of Irma. IMHO, if NOAA cannot reliably predict the track of tropical cyclones even 48 hours in advance, it should widen the "cones" of its track predictions. As presently structured, they are imparting a false sense of security to some, and a false sense of certain danger to others. Why not just be honest and say "We have theories, but we really don't know WHERE it's going, even 48 hours in advance?" That's the obvious truth, why not tell it? And please don't tell me "They do," with their fine print disclaimers. People take the graphics they serve up as gospel.

The west coast of FL was never out of the cone 48-120 hours before landfall!

Although I don't live in Florida I have relatives that live in the Tampa area so I was following this storm pretty closely. I would agree with Dot Dun about the NWS forecasts that I observed. Plus I frequently heard that no matter what the actual track of this storm, Irma was so large that both coasts of Florida would be affected with potentially severe weather. Certainly NWS and the National Hurricane Center cannot control what people may editorialize about the consequences of this storm. That is why it is important to check the original source of all warnings and watches that are issued, in this case NWS/National Hurricane Center.

I know that I'll take a lot of flack for this thread from people who feel all is as it should be with hurricane forecasting, but I have a problem with it. 48 hours before Irma made landfall, NOAA was predicting disaster for the East Coast of Florida. The media ran with the ball, and many thousands of East Coast Floridians evacuated to points north. Then, two days before landfall, NOAA changed its prediction, and said that Irma would track the WEST Coast, and residents there were left with limited options. In each case, the media played it up with lurid headlines predicting massive death and destruction on BOTH coasts. The fact is, NOAA's "cone" for East Coast tracking did not encompass the actual West Coast track of Irma. IMHO, if NOAA cannot reliably predict the track of tropical cyclones even 48 hours in advance, it should widen the "cones" of its track predictions. As presently structured, they are imparting a false sense of security to some, and a false sense of certain danger to others. Why not just be honest and say "We have theories, but we really don't know WHERE it's going, even 48 hours in advance?" That's the obvious truth, why not tell it? And please don't tell me "They do," with their fine print disclaimers. People take the graphics they serve up as gospel.

the problem is with newswcasters is they work office hour,so generally weather info is prepared 24 hours in advance of broadcast,then basiccally once the recording is made in the studio it is rebroadcast for the nex 24 hour perioud,making it almost 48 hours out of date by the end of the day.

if you want real live predictions on a very fluid powerful weather systems you need to go on you tube for live broadcasts from noaa forcasters here is one guy that deserves some serious kudo's for his almost constant 3hourly 24/7 dissemination of noaa info

I don't think you will get a lot of flack, this is a friendly site. But I think you are wrong to criticize the NHC forecasters. Florida is a very narrow strip of land. And if Irma had been a few miles east of her actual track the damage would be been several times worse and it is pretty bad as it is.

I think the NHC have to err on the side of explaining to people the worst that can happen. If they did not do that and the worst happened there would be no end of hearings and media editorials calling for heads to roll.

Take the recent event with Harvey. NHC predicted 4 feet of rain in the Houston area. The local government decided not to evacuate based on what happened with a previous hurricane (Ivan?) when they listened to NHC and evacuated many people. Several lives were lost in the evacuation including a good friend of mine. But that hurricane did not live up to the worst case scenario.

So Harvey comes along and the city mayor told people in Houston not to listen to the NHC and Texas governor. He told citizens to shelter in place. The result was a disaster. The mayor has gotten a lot of flack.

They do the best they can with what they have.
Then it gets into the Politicians and News people's hands.
The Politician knows they had better play it up, cause if they don't and they are wrong, there will be Hell to pay, think aftermath of New Orleans.

News people will make money if they overblow it.
Glynn County Ga had a mandatory evacuation Monday morning 8 AM.
Three days before the storm? Blocked my Son from showing up with his truck and trailer so that I could pack away all the valuable stuff and send the dinghy into hiding.
I evacuated My Wife, who I have heard will be allowed back tomorrow, but is of course costing us $100+ a day while they won't let her return.

Point being is there are layers to this, each layer has a stake in overreacting so that you end up being ridiculously conservative, so much so that people learn to ignore the warnings.

I believe that is why many people didn't do a decent job of preparing their boat, cause they have been through this before.
And you know what, this time in Ga they were right, no damage to unprepared boats here.
Next time I won't be so quick to evacuate the Wife, not if they don't allow her back for a week, how long would it have been if there really was significant damage?

The predictions are not an exact science. Windy.com and Predict Wind give you 4 scenarios to choose from. Both of these had Irma going up the East coast of Florida, the West coast, right down the middle and then NAM had it going West off the coast. As the hurricane got closer, the predictions all migrated closer together,
Watching the story unfold on national media you need to understand what sells. Fire and Brimstone sells well, so that's what they give us.
If you watch any of the "Reality TV" shows, you are the target.

I know that I'll take a lot of flack for this thread from people who feel all is as it should be with hurricane forecasting, but I have a problem with it. 48 hours before Irma made landfall, NOAA was predicting disaster for the East Coast of Florida. The media ran with the ball, and many thousands of East Coast Floridians evacuated to points north. Then, two days before landfall, NOAA changed its prediction, and said that Irma would track the WEST Coast, and residents there were left with limited options. In each case, the media played it up with lurid headlines predicting massive death and destruction on BOTH coasts. The fact is, NOAA's "cone" for East Coast tracking did not encompass the actual West Coast track of Irma. IMHO, if NOAA cannot reliably predict the track of tropical cyclones even 48 hours in advance, it should widen the "cones" of its track predictions. As presently structured, they are imparting a false sense of security to some, and a false sense of certain danger to others. Why not just be honest and say "We have theories, but we really don't know WHERE it's going, even 48 hours in advance?" That's the obvious truth, why not tell it? And please don't tell me "They do," with their fine print disclaimers. People take the graphics they serve up as gospel.

So, where did you think she was going to go? Maybe you are one of the people that think we should fire all scientists and just rely on POTUS to tell us where hurricanes are going to go or even if one is coming. Get real with your expectations.

The people who were inconvienced by the inaccuracies of forecasting have my sympathy as do all those who suffered loss.

The National Hurricane Center offers a product called forecast discussion.
This product detailed the fact that increasing wind sheer was expected within 6-12 hours of Irma's turn North. From images of the storm, the actual turn
North seemed to be slightly delayed in relation to forecast movement toward the Keys. The next forecast discussion, and aircraft reports, noted that the storm appeared to weaken slightly. Of course at this point the warm Gulf Stream waters were just ahead, and this could easily erase the slight decrease in speed noted as Irma turned North.

At this point the storm was forecast to rake just offshore of the Florida West coast. This would put the destructive semi circle along the coast. As the storm crossed the Keys a good satellite image of the eye, observed over several hours,
illustrated a straight track for landfall between Everglades City and Naples. The forecast still called for a raking pass just offshore. When I saw the track pass Cape Sable, holding North, I knew my boat, stored in Charlotte County, would likely survive.

A forecast is just a best guess prediction. Observation of the forecast by the mariner, or the aviator, allows a validation, or invalidation, of this "best guess."
If under way this revised information allows us to modify our plans.

It is regrettable that the public sometimes thinks meteorologist are without error.
For those of us who boat, the NHC forecast discussion is a valuable source of information. The meteorologist do a better job than I would standing with my back to the wind and holding out my left arm to track the low. That, and the presence of a high filtered haze, are the sort of thing the old mariners had to work with. Give me satellite please!

I know that I'll take a lot of flack for this thread from people who feel all is as it should be with hurricane forecasting, but I have a problem with it. 48 hours before Irma made landfall, NOAA was predicting disaster for the East Coast of Florida. The media ran with the ball, and many thousands of East Coast Floridians evacuated to points north. Then, two days before landfall, NOAA changed its prediction, and said that Irma would track the WEST Coast, and residents there were left with limited options. In each case, the media played it up with lurid headlines predicting massive death and destruction on BOTH coasts. The fact is, NOAA's "cone" for East Coast tracking did not encompass the actual West Coast track of Irma. IMHO, if NOAA cannot reliably predict the track of tropical cyclones even 48 hours in advance, it should widen the "cones" of its track predictions. As presently structured, they are imparting a false sense of security to some, and a false sense of certain danger to others. Why not just be honest and say "We have theories, but we really don't know WHERE it's going, even 48 hours in advance?" That's the obvious truth, why not tell it? And please don't tell me "They do," with their fine print disclaimers. People take the graphics they serve up as gospel.

You will get a lot of flack, because your recollection is incorrect. Five days before Irma impacted the Florida mainland, the cone covered both coasts, and it never stopped covering both coasts. Yes, the predicted path of the eye started on the east coast, and moved west, but the cone always covered both coasts. NOAA did refer to Irma as a potentially catastrophic storm for Florida, and for many it was. Thank goodness Florida did not experience the devastation visited on the islands (although the Keys may have). I think NOAA's predictions for Irma were uncanny. And for Harvey, as well. And for Katia. And now for Jose, doing a loop. NOAA's ability to predict the movements of these storms has improved so much in the last 30 years it almost forces me to admit that the government can do some things right.

And by the way, what I am saying is easily verified. Just go to the archive files on the NOAA site.

Once the 5-day forecast included the state within the cone of probability (Sept 4, before even making landfall in the islands) the west coast of Florida was never out. That is, there was always a significant chance Irma would follow the path it did.

If you watch the loop of forecasts, to me at least, it seems NOAA nailed the prediction for the most part. Heck, the eye of Irma hit the Keys right where it was predicted to do so 5 days before.

But more to the OP's point, maybe NOAA should not forecast (or graphically display) the eye of the hurricane or do so only for a day or two out. Or make the eye symbol larger as the forecast goes out. If a small eye for 12 hours out reflects 80% probability, then at 5 days out a huge symbol is required to also reflect an 80% probability.

I doubt NOAA wants that little 'M' symbol to be interpreted as precisely as the graphic appears. Sure the news can get better at telling the true story, but so can NOAA.

I never rely on NOAA predictions of storm path. I am sure there must be some politics involved in predicting worse case scenarios so they don't get blamed if things get really bad.

When I lived through hurricanes and tropical storms for five years in Puerto Rico, I took the predictions with a grain of salt. Time and again the storms did not do what was predicted.

My modus operandi was that if there was a hurricane in the area, I would treat it as if it was a real threat, because until it passed by, it was a threat. The prediction models are only as good as the data that they feed into the model.

Part of the problem telling actual storm movement relates to the fact that sometimes the eye is poorly formed, and when it reorganizes/reforms, the weather service says that the storm, moved in the direction of the new eye. Maybe so and maybe not. Certainly the New Zealand and Australian weather services were not in agreement on what was happening. I just sailed back and forth south of New Caledonia until there was a clear consensus about which way the storm was headed.

If there is a hurricane anywhere in the vicinity, I prepare for it as if it was aiming just for me in my anchorage, because there is no way that I can be sure about the accuracy of the predictions.